Influence of heart failure on resting lung volumes in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:: To evaluate the influence of chronic heart failure (CHF) on resting lung volumes in patients with COPD, i.e., inspiratory fraction-inspiratory capacity (IC)/TLC-and relative inspiratory reserve-[1 - (end-inspiratory lung volume/TLC)]. METHODS:: This was a prospective study involving 56 patients with COPD-24 (23 males/1 female) with COPD+CHF and 32 (28 males/4 females) with COPD only-who, after careful clinical stabilization, underwent spirometry (with forced and slow maneuvers) and whole-body plethysmography. RESULTS:: Although FEV1, as well as the FEV1/FVC and FEV1/slow vital capacity ratios, were higher in the COPD+CHF group than in the COPD group, all major "static" volumes-RV, functional residual capacity (FRC), and TLC-were lower in the former group (p < 0.05). There was a greater reduction in FRC than in RV, resulting in the expiratory reserve volume being lower in the COPD+CHF group than in the COPD group. There were relatively proportional reductions in FRC and TLC in the two groups; therefore, IC was also comparable. Consequently, the inspiratory fraction was higher in the COPD+CHF group than in the COPD group (0.42 ± 0.10 vs. 0.36 ± 0.10; p < 0.05). Although the tidal volume/IC ratio was higher in the COPD+CHF group, the relative inspiratory reserve was remarkably similar between the two groups (0.35 ± 0.09 vs. 0.44 ± 0.14; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:: Despite the restrictive effects of CHF, patients with COPD+CHF have relatively higher inspiratory limits (a greater inspiratory fraction). However, those patients use only a part of those limits, probably in order to avoid critical reductions in inspiratory reserve and increases in elastic recoil. OBJETIVO:: Avaliar a influência da insuficiência cardíaca crônica (ICC) nos volumes pulmonares de repouso em pacientes com DPOC, ou seja, fração inspiratória -capacidade inspiratória (CI)/CPT - e reserva inspiratória relativa - [1 - (volume pulmonar inspiratório final/CPT)]. MÉTODOS:: Após cuidadosa estabilização clínica, 56 pacientes com DPOC (24 alocados no grupo DPOC+ICC; 23 homens/1 mulher) e 32 (28 homens/4 mulheres) com DPOC isolada foram submetidos à espirometria forçada e lenta e pletismografia de corpo inteiro. RESULTADOS:: Os pacientes do grupo DPOC+ICC apresentaram maior VEF1, VEF1/CVF e VEF1/capacidade vital lenta; porém, todos os principais volumes "estáticos" - VR, capacidade residual funcional (CRF) e CPT - foram menores que aqueles do grupo DPOC (p < 0,05). A CRF diminuiu mais do que o VR, determinando assim menor volume de reserva expiratória no grupo DPOC+ICC que no grupo DPOC. Houve redução relativamente proporcional da CRF e da CPT nos dois grupos; logo, a CI também foi similar. Consequentemente, a fração inspiratória no grupo DPOC+ICC foi maior que no grupo DPOC (0,42 ± 0,10 vs. 0,36 ± 0,10; p < 0,05). Embora a razão volume corrente/CI fosse maior no grupo DPOC+ICC, a reserva inspiratória relativa foi notadamente similar entre os grupos (0,35 ± 0,09 vs. 0,44 ± 0,14; p < 0,05). CONCLUSÕES:: Apesar dos efeitos restritivos da ICC, pacientes com DPOC+ICC apresentam elevações relativas dos limites inspiratórios (maior fração inspiratória). Entretanto, esses pacientes utilizam apenas parte desses limites, com o provável intuito de evitar reduções críticas da reserva inspiratória e maior trabalho elástico.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".